Canada's welfare state starts to implode as demographic realities come home to roost

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Have you heard that the system is going broke, and that reforms are vitally necessary to try and save it? What Cameron is trying to do is barely fiddling around the edges, yet Labour is having a fecal hemorrhage over these minor reforms that will not even begin to solve the problems. The system is on the brink right now. What do you think will happen as the number of elderly patients the system must contend with skyrockets? This, while medical costs continue to go through the roof?

Whether Cameron is attempting to privatize, and to what level is a non-issue. It is arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. The real issue is that the system is unsustainable and already becoming insolvent, even with reforms.

The real problem with the NHS is the population has outgrown it and was never intended to cope with such a large population. Labour is being labour and will not back anything government will do, capping the amount non working families can claim in benefits is another very good example which is a slap in the face to the working poor of this country.
The NHS needs reform, without it the level of care will drop. It also needs to expand to cope with the rise in population, it however does not mean its being sold off in to private hands.

You're one of the most ultra-right wing conservatives on MP.net, along with C.Puffs, LineDoggie and chauncy republicans...

How am I not on that list ?

Then again, I consider myself a neocon, and thats heresy among normal conservatism.

Then again, I used to be a Stalinist so, make of that what you will...

Also, I've learned never to mock or talk bad about the NHS to Brits. They may talk about its deficiencies inside, but if you as a foreigner criticizes...God help you, the ranks close faster than you can say 'healthcare'

Also, I've learned never to mock or talk bad about the NHS to Brits. They may talk about its deficiencies inside, but if you as a foreigner criticizes...God help you, the ranks close faster than you can say 'healthcare'

The NHS is the closest thing the English have to a national religion -Nigel Lawson. And with good reason, in my experience.

The global economy crisis I say.
The current U.S healthcare system is better? Please give me a break.
Free healthcare should be mandatory in any western nation. Period

Originally Posted by Leaper

Free as in included in your taxes. Time to wake up America.

I'm not an expert on Sweden, but my impression is that like Japan (which also has tax-payer subsidized health care), the overwhelming majority of the population works and contributes towards the system, and the amount of people who leech off it are miniscule. Also in Japan, people tend to make wise lifestyle choices: illegal drugs are rare, and people tend to eat sensibly.

As a result, heavy taxpayer subsidization of healthcare has been successful in Sweden and Japan.

However, it's different in the US, where we have a lot of people who simply want to lay around and be parasites. I work in a hospital, where I see ER patients arriving on a hourly basis, due to their lifestyle choices: heavy drug use, alcoholism, and junk food/fast food diets.

I have no problem with the government using my tax dollars with assisting those who are in temporary constraints and need a helping hand to get on their feet. During the approximate two years I was working for near-minimum wage, and had four mouths to feed, my kids were on government-funded health insurance, and I was grateful for the help. But I resent having to enable people who simply have no desire to do what it takes to survive and prosper on their own, and I think that in our society, a system like yours in Sweden or that in Japan would simply not work.

I think most people would agree that the US has different needs to Europe (and that most European countries have different needs to each other) and that there is no universally superior system. Countries should pursue a system which provides the best balance of quality, access to and cost of care for them. Imho, the NHS works for us in Britain. Leaper seems satisfied with his system in Sweden. You raised some good points about why a similar government run/funded system possibly would no work in the US.

Now if we could just get Ought Six to stop trying dictate to us about things he has no experience of, we might have a chance at a productive, insightful exchange of views.

Personally, having grown up with the NHS, which is entirely tax funded and free at point of use, I would be very much against any kind of privatisation. To me, there is nothing that can replace the peace of mind that I will get the care I need, should I require it, even if I'm flat broke. I'd definitely be against an almost entirely private system like the US has, especially given that it seems to cost more, without providing universal coverage (which to me is one of the key pillars of a health system)

This is just an anti-Obama thread disguised to be something else. However, Ought Six is correct in that our demographics are going to catch up with us if we do not take action soon. Everything else is a load of uninformed crap.

The solution is to get rid of the "only public" mandate, and allow some private medicine to operate as well. Quebec is already doing this, and I suspect other provinces will follow suit. Stephen Harper has publicly spoken of this, and is trying to bring this discussion into the mainstream regarding Canadian health care.

We don't need some ideological wanker like Ought Six to tell us how it ought to be. You have your own mess to clean up. We're doing just fine, thanks.

Also, I've learned never to mock or talk bad about the NHS to Brits. They may talk about its deficiencies inside, but if you as a foreigner criticizes...God help you, the ranks close faster than you can say 'healthcare'

What people from outside the UK cannot seem to grasp is that there are three distinct National Health Services in the UK. I don't know how many times I will have to repeat that before understand that fundamental point. I'm seeing a lot of sheer ignorance about healthcare in the UK in this thread, starting with that concept.

Originally Posted by Corrupt

Now if we could just get Ought Six to stop trying dictate to us about things he has no experience of, we might have a chance at a productive, insightful exchange of views.

I'm not an expert on Sweden, but my impression is that like Japan (which also has tax-payer subsidized health care), the overwhelming majority of the population works and contributes towards the system, and the amount of people who leech off it are miniscule. Also in Japan, people tend to make wise lifestyle choices: illegal drugs are rare, and people tend to eat sensibly.

As a result, heavy taxpayer subsidization of healthcare has been successful in Sweden and Japan.

However, it's different in the US, where we have a lot of people who simply want to lay around and be parasites. I work in a hospital, where I see ER patients arriving on a hourly basis, due to their lifestyle choices: heavy drug use, alcoholism, and junk food/fast food diets.

I have no problem with the government using my tax dollars with assisting those who are in temporary constraints and need a helping hand to get on their feet. During the approximate two years I was working for near-minimum wage, and had four mouths to feed, my kids were on government-funded health insurance, and I was grateful for the help. But I resent having to enable people who simply have no desire to do what it takes to survive and prosper on their own, and I think that in our society, a system like yours in Sweden or that in Japan would simply not work.

What a analytic, well formulated and to-the-point response, even if I don't agree with you. And you didn't use the word as*hole even once.

Let me first state that this thread is staying on target a bit too much!
Secondly I want to point the secondary factors that emerge from a socialized health care system, and it is how people will support other government actions that in the end decrease health case costs. Let me give some examples of what I mean.
- Tax on soft drinks (soda pop for you Canadians) and other sugary laden food. Has support in e.g. Sweden and France but I cannot see it go through in the US. But averybody (who has been in the US) knows the relationship between sugar consumption. obesity and health problems
- Walkable communities, bike trails and public transport. Some in the GOP in the US equal town planning for this with a UN instigated plan to force the USA into socialism. But while that part is admittedly true, it also makes people walk more, and keeps people slimmer (cue New York).
If people know they have to pay for the fat bastards healthcare they will happily force him to walk!

There is no support in Canada for a system like the US. When Canada talks about improving it's health care system, it's looking at European models, French, German, Swiss, because those are the best. A mixture of private and public health services, all regulated by the government, and accessible to everyone. Plus, Canada is doing great, real estate market is booming, the banks are solid, the unemployment rate is not bad, the economy is chugging along, we have the best performance of all western nations, so what's there to criticize.